Ross v. Knox
| Decision Date | 07 March 1902 |
| Citation | 71 N.H. 249,51 A. 910 |
| Parties | ROSS v. KNOX. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Carroll county.
Assumpsit by Harriet E. Ross against Charles O. Knox, executor of Edward Knox, deceased. Defendant's motion for a nonsuit was denied, and he brings an exception. Exception overruled.
Assumpsit, for board of the defendant's decedent, Edward Knox, and for boarding his horse. Trial at the October term, 1901, of the superior court, before Pike, J., who found a verdict for the plaintiff, and reported that the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove the following facts: In May, 1900, the plaintiff's attorney exhibited and presented to the executor, who was appointed in April, 1900, an itemized account of the plaintiff's claim, intending the executor to understand that payment was thereby requested. The executor so understood. No further formal demand of payment was made. There was evidence of an express agreement between the testator and the plaintiff, made during the latter's coverture, that she should board him at an agreed price per week, and should also board his horse. For the board of the horse no price was agreed upon. The plaintiff's husband "paid for the groceries and furnished the table" where Edward boarded. There was no evidence of any agreement between the plaintiff and her husband whether she should or should not pay him for the groceries, or that she had ever paid or intended to pay him therefor. The plaintiff's husband was a witness, and testified that Edward's agreement was with the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a finding of a demand upon the executor, or a contract with the plaintiff. The motion was denied, subject to the defendant's exception.
Elmer J. Smart, for plaintiff.
Josiah H. Hobbs, for defendant.
PARSONS, J. 1. Upon the evidence, the finding of a legal demand upon the executor presents no error of law. The understanding of the parties that by what was done a demand was made constituted a legal demand. No particular language was necessary. The only advantage to be obtained by the use of precise terms is their availability in proof of the mutual understanding of which the case states there was evidence. Norris v. Morrill, 40 N. H. 395, 400, 401; Manufacturing Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 314. A demand by one as agent is sufficient, if the agent's authority is not questioned at the time. Leach v. Noyes, 45 N. H. 304, 305; Phelps...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flynn v. Driscoll
... ... known his objection seasonably." ( Brown v ... Forest, 95 Ind. 248; Waltemar v. Schnick's ... Estate, 102 Mo.App. 133, 76 S.W. 1053; Ross v ... Knox, 71 N.H. 249, 51 A. 910; Merino v. Munoz, ... 99 A.D. 201, 90 N.Y.S. 985; Aiken v. Coolidge, 12 Ore. 244, 6 ... C. S., ... ...
-
Watson v. Carvelle
...in its failure to state '"a specific demand with which she [the defendant] might immediately comply." The case of Ross v. Knox, 71 N. H. 249, 51 A. 910, is also in accord with the rule. The claim there presented was in itemized form, a fact which did not authorize an inference that the item......
-
Racine v. Armstrong
...assumpsit. See Nixon v. Bonenfant, 97 N.H. 230, 232, 84 A.2d 841; RSA 507:3. She was competent to contract for the rent, Ross v. Knox, 71 N.H. 249, 51 A. 910; McConnell v. McConnell, 75 N.H. 385, 74 A. 875, and the defendant would not be liable if the plaintiffs in fact relied solely upon h......
-
Town of Jaffrey v. Smith
...N. H. 385, 386, 23 Atl. 428. And objections to the form in which the claim is presented are waived unless taken at the time. Ross v. Knox, 71 N. H. 249, 51 Atl. 910. If this is the rule as to the somewhat strictly enforced provision for an exhibition, which informs the executor of the condi......